Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

United States Signs Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

January 21, 2009/2 Comments/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

On 19th January, the outgoing State Department Legal Advisor, John Bellinger, signed the Hague Convention (of 30 June 2005) on Choice of Court Agreements on behalf of the United States of America. The USA is the first country to sign the Convention, with Mexico also a party to the Convention through accession. The status table of the Convention can be found on the HCCH website, as well as the preliminary documents, and the explanatory report prepared by Hartley and Dogauchi.

Is this the first of many? Will other countries follow the USA’s lead, and sign up to the Convention? I very much doubt it, but you are welcome to disagree with me in the comments.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2009-01-21 13:21:242009-01-21 13:21:24United States Signs Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
2 replies
  1. Sean C. Duffy says:
    April 5, 2009 at 6:19 am

    And last Wednesday, the European Community signed the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention.

    http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=events.details&year=2009&varevent=163

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: In Memoriam: Professor Jan Kropholler Link to: In Memoriam: Professor Jan Kropholler In Memoriam: Professor Jan Kropholler Link to: PIL conference in Johannesburg Link to: PIL conference in Johannesburg PIL conference in Johannesburg
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top